• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31]

Would you support this compromised version of the Dream Act

  • Total voters
    29
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Praxas said:
We want an educated workforce
Click to expand...

Here's the question.

Is there already an incentive for an individual living in this country to go to college, yes or no? (I'd say the answer is, in general, yes. The only time it's not is if one is looking to go into a field that doesn't require a college degree).

Is there already an incentive for an individual who had enlisted with our military to go to college, yes or no? (I'd say the answer is, in general, yes. You are provided the ability to use the G.I. Bill, and not making use of it is basically giving away free money)

Peace Corps, while not having a tuition assistance program, does provide an $8,000 bonus upon completion of ones tour that could then easily be used to transition into academic life.

So I disagree with the notion that this will somehow lead to an "uneducated workforce" if we remove college as a pathway option. That's part of people's issue with the college portion of it already; there's enough incentives in the time being for these individuals to go to college, granting residency isn't really needed as an incentive. I think the number of individuals who would have gone to college simply to qualify for the Dream Act, but otherwise wouldn't have bothered, would be limited.

This is especially true in my mind, considering the argument in favor of "Dreamers" is that they have been here for so long that they've just sort of assimilated already into the American culture. Nearly 70% of students now go to college. Going to college is the norm, the standard. If these individuals truly are those who have just been living in the U.S. most of their life and are simply the average kid you see in school who identifies more with the American culture and lifestyle than with the "home" country", then the overwhelming majority of them would be attending college irrelevant to whether or not it's part of a pathway to residency.

So I get your point, but I simply think it's a flawed conclussion.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Fenton said:
What does any of that have to do with Cigar's race baiting rheotric ?
Click to expand...

It has to do with YOUR idiotic race baiting claiming that's all the Dems have after 8 years of Obama. As if Obama had created all those problems.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

haymarket said:
Why is there no path to citizenship in your proposal?
Click to expand...

Because my proposal was taking the Dream Act and changing only one part of it....the service/school requirement.

The Dream Act does not have a direct pathway to citizenship, only to residency. Permanent Residency does, however, have a pathway built within it.

So in essence.

A doesn't lead directly to C, only to B.

However, B does lead to C.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Fenton said:
Its no excuse, but after 8 years of Obama they have nothing left to work with
They have to rely on sewing division by any means necessary, pitting American against American so they can exploit it for political gain

The Democratic party has really sunk to a new low, and thats saying something
Click to expand...

I have long thought that the entire political process we have (and both parties are responsible) is simply to have us distracted fighting over issues that will never be addressed rather than get any actual work done.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Fenton said:
One things for sure, it certainly wont change devisive agendas that exploit the color of peoples skin for political gain

Newp, after 8 years of Obama, thats all the Democrats have to work with
Click to expand...

Well you see, people like my Grandfather and Fathers age, they had to sometimes bite their lip, turn the other cheek and put up with Racism.

That ended at my Generation and younger, and I truly believe this where all the anxiety is coming from.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Moderator's Warning:
Folks, there's a topic here. You think something was "baiting"? Then I'd suggest you not take the bait, because if you DO and you contribute to threadjacking, then you're just as responsible...if not more responsible if you're doing it far more...than anyone posting the original bait.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Zyphlin said:
Because my proposal was taking the Dream Act and changing only one part of it....the service/school requirement.

The Dream Act does not have a direct pathway to citizenship, only to residency. Permanent Residency does, however, have a pathway built within it.

So in essence.

A doesn't lead directly to C, only to B.

However, B does lead to C.
Click to expand...

Thank for the detail.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

VanceMack said:
And to many of those individuals, the color of ones skin is ALL that matters. Its all they can see.
Click to expand...

I would like to think that post- Harvey did a lot to expose this toxic left wing agenda that seeks to sew division for the purposes of political exploitation, but I also know that the Left is relentless and desperate when it comes to implementing their agenda
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Cigar said:
... but this won't change the color of their skin.
Click to expand...

Which has to do with what?
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Fenton said:
I would like to think that post- Harvey did a lot to expose this toxic left wing agenda that seeks to sew division for the purposes of political exploitation, but I also know that the Left is relentless and desperate when it comes to implementing their agenda
Click to expand...
You know what? I made a mistake in posting on the race baiting stupidity in this thread. I wont do it again. This topic is about DACA and real solutions. You should maybe consider addressing the topic and ignoring the other bull**** for once.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Cigar said:
Well you see, people like my Grandfather and Fathers age, they had to sometimes bite their lip, turn the other cheek and put up with Racism.

That ended at my Generation and younger, and I truly believe this where all the anxiety is coming from.
Click to expand...

DACA is illegal, unconstitutional and this has nothing to do with skin color

Trump kicked it back to Congress as he should have and I honestly dont see why everyone's so outraged over it
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Fenton said:
DACA is illegal, unconstitutional and this has nothing to do with skin color

Trump kicked it back to Congress as he should have and I honestly dont see why everyone's so outraged over it
Click to expand...

Good, so what's The End-Goal?
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Cigar said:
I kinda agree with you, forcing someone to watch another Soldier's Back isn't Service, they should first want to do it.

That's a tough call, I'd rather hear from someone in the Military first.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be the first time we've had compulsory military service. And I damn sure didn't want to do it.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Fenton said:
One things for sure, it certainly wont change devisive agendas that exploit the color of peoples skin for political gain

Newp, after 8 years of Obama, thats all the Democrats have to work with
Click to expand...

Not all, but most of it.

The remainder of the D platform is Trump bad.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

VanceMack said:
You know what? I made a mistake in posting on the race baiting stupidity in this thread. I wont do it again. This topic is about DACA and real solutions. You should maybe consider addressing the topic and ignoring the other bull**** for once.
Click to expand...

You know what ? I dont suffer fools well, never had, never will and you can keep your ****ing suggestions to yourself, mkay ?

Ill respond the way that I think is appropriate, and if I get dinged for it, so be it.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Cigar said:
Good question ... start with yourself.
Click to expand...

I didn't bring it up.

I wouldn't bring it up.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Fenton said:
You know what ? I dont suffer fools well, never had, never will and you can keep your ****ing suggestions to yourself, mkay ?

Ill respond the way that I think is appropriate, and if I get dinged for it, so be it.
Click to expand...
One can only assume then that this lyric was meant for you...

"Its a sad man my friend that's living in his own skin and cant stand the company".

Enjoy.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Don't you have to pass certain qualifications for military service? Also, don't they only accept certain temperaments, etc.? I don't see that as reasonable to require.
I think having a job or being in school, being fluent in English, having basically been raised here for years, paying taxes, and having no serious criminal charges (minor should be allowed), is sufficient. Of all the potential targets for deportation, I'd say these are some of the lowest. If they aren't gonna be deported, path to perm-residency (and let the existing laws take it from there as Zyph suggests), is sufficient IMO.

But the idea that Republicans will compromise, or do anything significant legislatively, in today's environment, seems to be a pipe dream. There is a real disconnect currently between what their primarily unreasonable base believes they want, as a result of right wing media controversy peddling, and what actual Republican elected officials are willing to do. Republican senators look at what their base wants and thinks "this **** is insane, what *WE* want is lower taxes for the wealthy/corporations...we convinced these clowns to vote for us, but on the promise of some really crazy **** that no one in their right mind would ever *actually* do. In the immigration case that's 100% mass deportation, ASAP.

jimbo said:
The remainder of the D platform is Trump bad.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. Everyone can look up legislative accomplishments when D is in power, and the platforms of the DNC, Bernie, and Hillary (the last #1/#2 D candidates). The actual Republican president, and House, and Senate, having won the power their supporters so desperately craved during the evil BHO, have enacted which parts of their platform? Come on Jimbo, waited 8 years, and what have they brought to the table when in full control?

Admit it, you're attacking Democrats for the failures that are evident in the Republican party right now. Republicans can't do anything substantial on immigration for one simple reason.
Right wing media has whipped up their ignorant base into believing crazy ****. And when the house/senate (and the dumb president to a degree), look at their options for "how do we pass legislation our base wants?", they are so appalled by how crazy-stupid it is, they the only thing they can do, nothing. They will block anything sure, but they won't enact anything.

The Republican majority is good at one thing, sitting on the sidelines flinging poo. It's what they did for 8 years with Obama, and now that they won power, they look around, scratch their ass, and resume flinging poo at Obama and Hillary.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

VanceMack said:
One can only assume then that this lyric was meant for you...

"Its a sad man my friend that's living in his own skin and cant stand the company".

Enjoy.
Click to expand...

Now YOUR'E off topic, and youve resorted to childish insults which means your'e in good company with any and all race baiting trolls who show up here at Dp on a regular basis

Like I said, I dont need your or anyone elses suggestions, so keep them to yourself
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Mach said:
But the idea that Republicans will compromise
Click to expand...

Did you just poo poo a suggested compromise, while criticizing people for not being open to compromising?

Wouldn't your post actually be a pretty clear example of why compromising is hard? A compromise is put forward and you basically reject it and say "nah, instead we should take out the one thing the other side may go for and actually make it even easier to do what my side already wants to do". I don't discount how you feel about it or your stance on military service. What I am pointing out though is that your thought process regarding this and your view is exactly the type of thing that shows why getting to a compromise is hard, and not just for the Republicans.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Zyphlin said:
For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?
Click to expand...

The forced military,Peace Corps service is a deal-killer for me. These are tough, potentially dangerous jobs not everyone can do, psychologically or physically, and I don't believe in forced labor as a condition for survival (given that many of these kids have no ability to survive in their parents' nation), especially when it's so potentially dangerous, to be frank. To me, that reads as indentured servitude.

I'll work with you on the path to PR and the length of time before attaining it, but proposing risky servitude as the only way of staying in the US seems pretty ethically dark to me.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

Zyphlin said:
Did you just poo poo a suggested compromise, while criticizing people for not being open to compromising?
Click to expand...
I clearly offered an alternative compromise, that's not just "poo pooing", is it?

And no, I don't know if you personally have an issue with compromise (although see below). You aren't in power though Zyph. Are you suggesting the current Republican leadership and their base is legitimately known for it's willingness to compromise in general or on immigration? I mean, they are in power, it's not like they are holding out until they get power so they can "do it right".

Wouldn't your post actually be a pretty clear example of why compromising is hard? A compromise is put forward and you basically reject it and say "nah, instead we should take out the one thing the other side may go for and actually make it even easier to do what my side already wants to do". I don't discount how you feel about it or your stance on military service. What I am pointing out though is that your thought process regarding this and your view is exactly the type of thing that shows why getting to a compromise is hard, and not just for the Republicans.
Click to expand...

That's absurd Zyph, it's not how actual negotiation works. Taking your "first proposal" as take-it-or-leave it, isn't really a negotiation. You may sell some used cars to suckers that way, but I don't think the average politician plays at that level.

In the real world, one side makes an offer, the other side makes a counter, and it may repeat for a time. Forward progress usually means both sides move a little closer in some way, to the middle ground between them.

Imagine you ranked your *wants* for your proposal in priority order, and the other party does the same. Negotiation can often result in forward progress when one sides lower priority is trade for another sides higher priority, for example. It's a process of discovery in many cases, finding out what the other side has to have, wants, and just as importantly, what they don't care about much. And new things may be added as well. I've never seen a final deal that was not better than the initial proposals, in a serious, complex engagement.

If dems had no reasonable chance of getting power in the near future, and they desperately wanted immigration reform "of some kind", and they had gone back and forth with you and this was the end, best effort, I may support it. I suspect with the floundering of the GOP right now w/Trump at the helm, Dems figure they can just wait out the storm and get things done when they are in a better negotiating position. Notice the difference though....Republicans ARE in power, both houses and POTUS. So they don't have that excuse IMO.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act

It's an interesting idea.

It's not even mandatory military service, truly; it's "you're welcome to leave or be deported to your country of origin if you'd prefer."

I like it.
 
Re: If put forward, would you support this compromise revision of the Dream Act [W:31

Zyphlin said:
For those that recall, the Dream Act is kind of the thing that started the DACA ball rolling. It was put forward, but failed, and from the ashes of it's failure rose DACA because congress didn't "act" in the way desired by President Obama. Now, DACA has been rescinded, but Trump is demanding Congress take some sort of action regarding "dreamers". However, the issue remains a contentious one between both sides. As such, I would like to explore this hypothetical situation.

The Dream Act is revived, but altered to only allow for volunteer federal service to allow the pathway to RESIDENCY. As such, it would mean:

Requirements to be considered
- Not have entered the United States on a non-immigrant visa- Have proof of having arrived in the United States before age 16
- Have proof of residence in the United States for at least five consecutive years since their date of arrival
- If male, have registered with the Selective Service
- Be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of bill enactment
- Have graduated from an American high school, obtained a GED, or been admitted to an institution of higher education
- Be of good moral character
- Have a clean background check

Over the next 6 years the individual would be granted conditional residency, and would need to serve at least 2 years in the U.S. Military or the Peace Corps, while maintaining a clean criminal history.

If at the end of those 6 years they have completed the required 2 years (if discharged, it must be honorable, and must be after 2 years) of federal volunteer service, and continue to have a clean background check, then they will be granted permanent residency.

--------

This removes the "go to college, get to stay here permanently" feature. It now makes service to the country, be it militarily or humanitarianly, as the singular passage way to gaining residency. This provides an option for these individuals if they truly do wish to stay within this country in a legal fashion, while at the same time provides a tangible benefit to the nation via their volunteer service while not essentially rewarding them for something as disconnected from the country and self-rewarding to begin with as it relates to college.

So, what say you....?

Republicans/Conservatives, would the service requirement being the only pathway provide a reasonable enough middle ground for you to get on board with such an act?

Democrats/Liberals, would the college pathway being removed make this a non-starter, or do you feel that a compromised option is better than drawing an "all or nothing" line in the sand?
Click to expand...

I don't agree. They have to go, if they don't then I think we've lost all control over our immigration policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom